Google and Sprint have submitted briefs in defense of Samsung and opposing a preliminary sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone that was recently granted to Apple.

District Court Judge Lucy Koh issued the injunction late last month on the grounds that the device likely infringes one of Apple's universal search patent. Though the district court initially denied a motion from Samsung to stay the ban while it sought an appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did grant temporary relief at least until Apple responds to the appeal motion later this week.

Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reported on Tuesday that Google, which makes the Android operating system and partnered with Samsung on the Galaxy Nexus, and wireless carrier Sprint have filed briefs opposing the sales ban.

In its filing, Google dismissed the alleged infringement as a "trivial patented aspect of a single application on the phone" and claimed there was no evidence that the search feature had "influenced sales." The Mountain View, Calif., company did admit that Apple's iPhone and the Galaxy Nexus "may compete for the same customers," but it challenged the assumption that buyers of either device would look for the same features.

However, Mueller called the claim a "bit of a stretch," noting that Google's claim that unified search is trivial has been undermined by the fact that the "allegedly unimportant feature" hasn't simply been removed to avoid possible infringement.

In fact, Google revealed last week that it will "imminently" release a software patch intended to remove the contested feature from the Galaxy Nexus. Android Central reported on Tuesday that a recent "security update" for another flagship Samsung smartphone, the Galaxy S III, removed the ability to search locally on the phone from the homescreen's search bar.

The move was presumably an attempt to preemptively avoid any sales bans on the Galaxy S III, since Apple is also seeking an injunction against the device.

As for Sprint, the wireless operator claimed in its amicus curiae brief that it would suffer harm from an injunction of the Galaxy Nexus. The company also cautioned that the practice of preliminary injunctions against smartphones should not be a regular occurrence in the "smartphone wars."

In an effort to demonstrate its fairness, the carrier asserted that it would make the same arguments even in the event of a Samsung sales ban against Apple's iPhone. According to the report, Sprint believes it is an "unwitting victim."

Sprint claimed that it takes "hundreds of people approximately 9-12 months" to see a smartphone through to market and an injunction would "substantially and irreparably" harm Sprint because it would leave a "void" in its smartphone portfolio.

Mueller remarked that he "can understand" Sprint and other carriers' interest in keeping devices on the market, but he also said that he is sympathetic to Apple's efforts for preliminary injunction because patent litigation in the U.S. is "so incredibly slow."

Both Google and Samsung showed off the Galaxy Nexus last October, touting it as the reference device for Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich.

The rivalry between Apple and Samsung has spilled over into courtrooms in more than 10 countries. Samsung is also fighting a preliminary injunction in the U.S. against its Galaxy Tab tablet.

The current state of patent litigation has drawn the attention of the government. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on whether injunctions should be allowed for standards-essential patent claims.

Here's a tip: All good inventions are obvious. That's why people go "why didn't I think of that?" That's the key point - why didn't anyone think of it before. Everything is obvious after you've seen it.

Here's a tip: All good inventions are obvious. That's why people go "why didn't I think of that?" That's the key point - why didn't anyone think of it before. Everything is obvious after you've seen it.

But this was obvious before you've seen it. To patent an idea it needs to be non-obvious to someone skilled in this area and there is nothing non-obvious about this particular patent.

"Yes, we copied Apple but those features aren't what customers are looking for so we think the lawsuit should be thrown out."

Pffftt... they sink to new lows.

Like I've said before, if we're gonna throw the word "copy" around then people have to admit to the theft of Android features such as Notification Center, OTA updates and wireless syncing, widgets, slide to camera from the lock screen, notifications from the lock screen, custom notification sounds, etc. I wonder if everyone will have the same stance when Google's notification patent goes through (possibly within a year) and they sue Apple?

Here's a tip: All good inventions are obvious. That's why people go "why didn't I think of that?" That's the key point - why didn't anyone think of it before. Everything is obvious after you've seen it.

But that has nothing at all to do with what the word means in the context of patent law.

People here point out many, many things that Steve said which turned out to not be true. To think that this statement is true, without further verification, is overly credulous, considering the source.

They turn out to be 'not true' mostly because the context of the statement changes thus allowing that previously stated item to be negated. Defending IP to the full extent of the law is context that rarely to never changes, at least in terms of the desire.

People here point out many, many things that Steve said which turned out to not be true. To think that this statement is true, without further verification, is overly credulous, considering the source.

Not sure what you mean. This was said at the first iPhone reveal and is all over YouTube.

then apple's patent is invalid because they patented a published prior art.

which Samsung and Google failed to prove.

so please do not speak without knowing what you speak of.

oh and btw, that's not the patent Samsung is found to be infringing on.

If you clicked the first link in the article, you would find that Universal Search in indeed the patent in question here. The fact that a patent was issued for this is ABSURD, and regardless of your sentiments towards Apple, any support for this level of patent trolling is repulsive.

U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 for a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" that was the basis of Friday's ruling..

And for the record, Samsung hasn't been 'found' infringing any patent. That is not what a PI implies.

If you clicked the first link in the article, you would find that Universal Search in indeed the patent in question here. The fact that a patent was issued for this is ABSURD, and regardless of your sentiments towards Apple, any support for this level of patent trolling is repulsive.

U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 for a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" that was the basis of Friday's ruling..

And for the record, Samsung hasn't been 'found' infringing any patent. That is not what a PI implies.

"so please do not speak without knowing what you speak of"

that guy said searching through apps from a search bar.

how is this patent about that? retrieving information stored inside the device from the search bar is the key of this patent as you can see from the independent Claim 1.

i don't like apple's patents either and you can find if you search my posts how i always bash apple off when it comes to,, everything nowadays.